UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ LOUIS MICHAEL ZAMORA, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. No. 21-1338 (D.C. No. 1:21-CV -01710-LTB-GPG) (D. Colo.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BRISCOE , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Proceeding pro se, 1 Plaintiff-Appellant Louis Michael Zamora appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint. Exercising ju risdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

* After examining the briefs and appella te record, this pa nel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially help dete rmine this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This orde r and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

1 We liberally construe Zamo ra’s filings, but we will not serve as his advocate. James v. Wadas , 724 F.3d 1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013). FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### December 28, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 12 BACKGROUND In his original complaint, Zamora sued the United Stat es Department of Health and Human Services, 2 apparently asserting a claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act. A magistrate judge conc luded that Zamora’s compla int did not satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. So it direct ed him to amend his complaint. Though the magistrate judge gave Zamora several opportunities to amend, 3 his amended complaints remained defici ent. Thus, the magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Zamora ’s last-amended complaint fo r failing to meet Rule 8’s pleading requirements. The recommendation a dvised Zamora that he had fourteen days to file written objections to the district court and th at failure to object may bar him from appealing the magistrate judge ’s findings. Zamora did not object. The district court adopted the ma gistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. It also denied Zamora’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, certifying under 28 U.S. C. § 1915(a)(3) that his appeal would not be in good faith. Zamora now appeals.
DISCUSSION We first consider whether Zamora has waived his right to appellate review. Our circuit applies a firm-waiver rule. Morales-Fernandez v. I.N.S. , 418 F.3d 1116,

2 The original complaint named the Depa rtment’s paralegal specialist, Heather Hill, as a defendant. But Zamora late r dropped her as a named defendant.

3 In his amended complaints, Zamora named the Department’s former secretary, Alex Azar, as a defendant. He also added clai ms alleging the Department’s negligent and wrongful acts of om issions and antitrust violations. Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 23 1119 (10th Cir. 2005). Under that rule, a party who fails to timely object to a magistrate judge’s recommendati ons waives appellate review. Id. The rule has two exceptions: (1) when a pro se litigant is unadvised that he must object or waive the objection; and (2) when the “interests of justice” require review. Id. Factors relevant to the second exception include the party’ s efforts to comply with the objection requirement, the party’s explanation for faili ng to comply, and the “importance of the issues raised.” Id. at 1120. We ordered Zamora to show cause as to why he did not waive his right to appellate review when he fa iled to object to the magist rate judge’s recommendation. He responded by arguing that he did not “r ecall[] waiving his right s to the appellate review,” and he reques ted appellate review in the “int erests of justice.” Opening Br.
at 3. Neither exception to the firm-waiver rule fits here. First, Zamora had adequate notice—the magistrate judge’s recommend ation informed Zamora that he was required to object within fourteen days and that failure to do so may waive appellate review. And second, the “interests of ju stice” don’t require review. Zamora made no effort to challenge the magi strate judge’s recommendation, failed to justify that failure, and his appellate brief doesn’t rais e issues of such im portance to overcome these other factors. See Henderson v. Cargill Packing Plant , 780 F. App’x 674, 675 (10th Cir. 2019). Thus, Zamora has waived his right to appellate review. See Bhomengo v. Hosp. Shared Servs. Inc. , 543 F. App’x 812, 814 (10th Cir. 2013). Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 34 CONCLUSION Because Zamora has waived his right to appellate review, we dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 4

Entered for the Court
Gregory A. Phillips Circuit Judge

4 We deny Zamora’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because he has not shown a reasoned, non-frivolous argument to support his appeal. See Saleh v. Kimo , 821 F. App’x 915, 918 (10th Cir. 2020). Appellate Case: 21-1338 Document: 010110624980 Date Filed: 12/28/2021 Page: 4